On old-fashioned progress
By Gennady Stolyarov II
web posted September 5, 2005
A fashionable -- and wrong -- cliché holds that "liberals," i.e., the
social and political Left, are inherent advocates of change,
rejuvenation, and progress, whereas "conservatives," i.e., the
broad spectrum of the Right, including principled republicans,
Christians, minarchists, libertarians, and Objectivists, are
characteristically old-fashioned, reactionary, and seek above all
a maintenance of a prior status quo instead of innovation,
creativity, and improvement. In fact, however, neither is the Left
progressive, nor does the Right advocate stagnation. If anything,
the prevalent adherence to "old-fashioned" notions among the
Right is the surest source of substantive future progress.
This view seems paradoxical at first glance, but an examination
of terms and of the facts of reality will suffice to verify it.
Dictionary.com's definition of "progress," most applicable to the
discussion at hand, is, "steady improvement, as of a society or
civilization." A steady improvement suggests that a society should
strive, in the future, to be more perfect than it presently is; it does
not suggest that a society should scrap all existing cultural,
political, and scientific knowledge in favor of a total "paradigm
shift."
Indeed, the latter course of action is what the Left, in general,
advocates. The Left views Western Culture-- the same culture
that brought us capitalism, individualism, objective science,
representational art, masterfully harmonious music, technological
advancement, and across-the-board improvement in standards
of living -- as oppressive, "Eurocentric," patriarchal, speciesist,
and fundamentally politically incorrect. As a remedy, the Left
suggests that Western Culture be altogether abandoned in favor
of a hydra with many "diverse" heads, including "post-
modernism," "internationalism," "multiculturalism,"
"environmentalism," "affirmative action," and, of course, the
ubiquitous welfare state.
The Left's approach is akin to looking at a skyscraper,
suggesting that the skyscraper, by its very presence, is
"oppressive" to the landscape of barren rock which preceded it,
tearing the skyscraper down, and building a shapeless structure
of thatch and mud in its place. Indeed, the hovel the Left has thus
built is new. But does it constitute progress? One might add that
once the hovel becomes too extensively developed, it will itself
be labeled "old-fashioned," leveled, and replaced by a new
"paradigm," perhaps a teepee or a yurt, but certainly nothing
remotely comparable to the grandeur of the skyscraper that the
Left demolished.
True progress is not a series of aimless "paradigm shifts." Sir
Isaac Newton, a man who knew true science and progress far
better than most twentieth-century theorists, stated, "if I have
seen further [than others] it is by standing on the shoulders of
giants." Indeed, the giants of the past, the Aristotles, Newtons,
Lockes, Voltaires, Rockefellers, and Gateses, made possible the
extraordinary level of material comfort, technological abundance,
and relative political freedom -- especially when compared to
atrocious third-world dictatorships which have rejected the
culture of the West -- that we enjoy today. Is it truly progressive
to forget all of these accomplishments and "move on," as the Left
advocates? Is it truly progressive, for example, to abandon our
admiration of the music Beethoven and Mozart, simply because
it is old, and embrace as "progress" the new, profanity-suffused
pandemonium created by Eminem?
The Western Culture is a colossal edifice, and, if we stand tall
upon it, it is solely due to the efforts of the intellectual giants who
came before us. If we wish to rise even higher, we should strive
to add our own bricks to the edifice, and perhaps to scan it for a
defective frame or two, a rotten brick or a broken window,
somewhere in its lower stories. But we can by no means
demolish it all, nor can we reject its fundamentals. This is indeed
"old-fashioned," embracing a legacy of millennia, but, without it,
we would be no better than savages, living upon a ground barren
and devoid of all human attempts at permanent improvement.
G. Stolyarov II is a science fiction novelist, independent
philosophical essayist, poet, amateur mathematician, composer,
contributor to The Autonomist, Le Quebecois Libre, and The
Liberal Institute. He is also Editor-in-Chief of The Rational
Argumentator , a magazine championing the Western principles
of reason, rights, and progress. Learn about Mr. Stolyarov's
newest science fiction novel, Eden against the Colossus, here
and his newest non-fiction treatise, A Rational Cosmology, here
. Mr. Stolyarov can be contacted at
gennadystolyarovii@yahoo.com.
Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com